Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
Malaise is back, only Supider
Published on October 19, 2010 By Dr Guy In Politics

"People out there are still hurting very badly, and they are still scared. And so part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared." - Barack Obama

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water, along comes Jaws II - The reincarnation of Jimmy Carter!

Yes, Barack Hussein Obama has outdone the old peanut head himself!  Carter only told the nation they were lazy with his "malaise" speech.  Obama has decided the nation is not only lazy, but stupid.  He must be taking the Evelyn Woodski course of "How to win friends and influence people".

in 1994, Clinton, with the help of Dick Morris, did an excellent job of triangulation after his stunning repudiation in the elections.  Some have said that Obama was going to do the same thing.  However, his tone and his actions indicate he is just not smart enough to understand how to do it, or even what to do.  Not everyone with an IQ of 72 is stupid, and not everyone with an IQ of 100 is smart (refute his IQ please).  But the mark of a smart man is to know his limitations and to say "I know not" when he knows not, and to seek advice, guidance and wisdom from others.

Obama is too stupid to even realize how stupid he is, or to do a Clinton. With mercy upon this nation, he will be a footnote in history as one of the worst presidents to ever serve, and that he only served one term.  I guess Carter is now going to have to rely solely on his Ignoble Peace Prize as his only claim to fame as he no longer is the worst president in modern times.  Obama has seen to that.

Must be why Carter sent Obama the thank you card.


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jan 11, 2011


And BTW he didn't call people stupid

facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time
Kinda.  Although his grammar is sorta stupid, for a brilliant law school grad & all.

Nah, he just spoke "stupidly".

on Jan 11, 2011

While being a governor is no guarantee of a good president

What I meant was that it is easier to see what a governor stands for as opposed to a legislator. There is so much spin applied to legislators voting records when they run for office. For example someone may vote against a version of a bill because of one specific piece of it and then others will use that to spin it to mean something else or that the person stands for something other than what he or she truly stands for.

 

So $4 trillion of debt is no harm?

It is definitely a problem. But that $4 trillion did not just disappear into thin air. Would the economy be worse if we didn't take on that debt? Will the economy be better or worse in the long term because of that debt? I like you on my initial question in my prior post patiently wait until i can answer these questions. 

on Jan 11, 2011

Chicken and the egg

Not really. Take the TEA Party out of the equation. If they hadn't come to exist what do you think the magnitude of the swing would have been? I would guess fewer libertarians would have gotten elected but i don't know whether all of those seats would have ultimately gone to republicans since a lot of the fervor was to get rid of incumbents.

on Jan 11, 2011

What I meant was that it is easier to see what a governor stands for as opposed to a legislator. There is so much spin applied to legislators voting records when they run for office. For example someone may vote against a version of a bill because of one specific piece of it and then others will use that to spin it to mean something else or that the person stands for something other than what he or she truly stands for.

I think you're quite right on this.  A Governor's executive actions are much less subject to obfuscation and you have a much more concrete basis for judging how they'd conduct themselves as President.

on Jan 11, 2011

What I meant was that it is easier to see what a governor stands for as opposed to a legislator. There is so much spin applied to legislators voting records when they run for office. For example someone may vote against a version of a bill because of one specific piece of it and then others will use that to spin it to mean something else or that the person stands for something other than what he or she truly stands for.

Ah, Agreed.

It is definitely a problem. But that $4 trillion did not just disappear into thin air. Would the economy be worse if we didn't take on that debt? Will the economy be better or worse in the long term because of that debt? I like you on my initial question in my prior post patiently wait until i can answer these questions.

it almost did.  Government can waste money that disappears, and given this money did no good, where is it?  You can find a few billion here and there perhaps, but I defy anyone to account for it all.  They cannot.  They might as well have burned the money.  Same effect.

on Jan 11, 2011

I think you're quite right on this.  A Governor's executive actions are much less subject to obfuscation and you have a much more concrete basis for judging how they'd conduct themselves as President.

And - more importantly - how they lead.  Congress has no leaders - just a bunch of committee men (and women).

on Jan 11, 2011

Then again, Carter was a governor.

on Jan 11, 2011

Then again, Carter was a governor.

 l'exception qui confirme la règle

2 Pages1 2